Judge questions independence of earthquake expert
A compensation claim from Norg must be reassessed after the court questioned an expert’s independence.
The Noord-Nederland District Court ruled that the Instituut Mijnbouwschade Groningen should not have rejected a compensation claim from Norg on the basis of the expert report used. According to public reporting, a personal interest on the part of the expert could not be ruled out.
Sietze de Jong from Norg brought the case. The IMG had rejected his claim on the basis of a report by Rinse Wiersum, who, according to the reports, was a co-owner and director of the damage consultancy D.O.G. Ingenieurs.
The court considered it significant that Wiersum had not disclosed his directorship and shareholding in the statement in which he had to confirm his independence. As a result, the judge said it could not be established that he had assessed the damage without a personal interest.
The ruling means that the earlier decision on De Jong’s claim will not stand. The claim had previously been rejected or assessed only to a limited extent; following the ruling, De Jong received almost €6,400, according to public reporting, compared with an amount of €1,225 mentioned earlier.
The case comes against the backdrop of broader criticism of how earthquake damage is assessed. Earlier investigations by NOS, RTV Noord, RTV Drenthe and Follow the Money showed that damage consultancies received large sums for assessments in the Groningen case.
The ruling does not automatically invalidate every report by D.O.G. or any other expert. It may, however, provide grounds for reviewing files in which the same expert, or similar statements about independence, played a role.
For those affected, the key point is that the judge looked not only at the technical assessment of the damage, but also at the position of the person who produced the report. The IMG and the damage consultancies involved will have to explain how they will exclude conflicts of interest in future.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The court found an expert report insufficiently independent for the assessment of one compensation claim.
- The IMG had previously rejected the claim of a resident of Norg.
- The ruling touches on the organisation and oversight of the public compensation process.
Left
Arguments The government must actively protect those affected from a system in which experts are paid by the body deciding on compensation. Doubts about independence should not be borne by residents.
Values Equality before the law, public responsibility and restoring trust.
Consequences A broader reassessment may cost more time and money, but would prevent those affected from having to bring legal proceedings themselves again.
Centre
Arguments The process must become more independent and transparent, but a court ruling on one report does not automatically justify reopening all files. Each case must be examined carefully.
Values Careful decision-making, legal certainty and practicability.
Consequences A clear reassessment procedure can restore trust without bringing the entire compensation process to a halt.
Right
Arguments The government must place individual responsibility and verifiable procedures at the centre. A system must not be expanded indefinitely on the basis of general suspicions about experts.
Values Efficiency, individual assessment and control of public funds.
Consequences A broad reopening of files could lead to delays, higher costs and less money for claims that are demonstrably well-founded.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The main legal and financial facts have been confirmed by several public sources. The text clearly distinguishes between the specific case and possible consequences for other files.
- confirmed The Noord-Nederland District Court found that the IMG had wrongly rejected Sietze de Jong’s claim. — Reported by Dit is Roden and Follow the Money via Headliner. source
- confirmed The report was produced by Rinse Wiersum, who was affiliated with D.O.G. Ingenieurs. — Reported by the sources used. source
- confirmed The judge found that a personal interest could not be ruled out because functions and ownership had not been stated in the independence declaration. — Description of the court’s ruling in the public reporting. source
- confirmed After the ruling, De Jong received almost €6,400, compared with an amount of €1,225 mentioned earlier. — Reported by Dit is Roden. source
Editor's note
The ruling, the expert involved and the consequences for the claim have been described in several public sources. The full ruling in the current case was not directly available through Rechtspraak.nl; possible consequences for other files have therefore been phrased cautiously.Sources
- Inwoner Norg krijgt gelijk: rechter vindt deskundige niet onafhankelijk bij aardbevingsschade — Dit is Roden
- Deskundige vaststelling aardbevingsschade niet onafhankelijk, oordeelt rechter — Follow the Money via Headliner
- Schadebureaus in bevingsgebied zagen vermogen afgelopen jaren enorm groeien — NOS
More on this in Dutch media
- De Telegraaf — „aardbevingsschade groningen”
- AD — „aardbevingsschade groningen”
- de Volkskrant — „aardbevingsschade groningen”